The Minister, Deputy Donohoe, will be aware that I have undertaken significant research into the operation of the local property system, LPT, specifically how it is distributed, and that I made a substantial submission to the review of the tax. I am sure the Minister will agree that the best way to turn people against a tax is to mislead them in regard to how it is to be spent. The reason for the resentment in regard to the local property tax is, I believe, people not knowing where their money is being spent.

While the conversation surrounding LPT tends to revolve around raising or lowering of the tax by up to 15%, one of the real scandals lies in the detail of how the model underpinning the operation of the tax builds an inherent structural unfairness into the system. The interdepartmental group report following the review of LPT stated that the work of the baseline review group was completed and that the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, was considering its findings. That was last March. The Government continues to sit on that report.

We are now at a time when local authorities are considering their budgets for 2020 and making LPT decisions. Owing to Government inaction, they continue to do so using a model that is grossly unfair. We know there is an equalisation element to this and that there are 31 councils in the Republic. Between 2015 and 2019, 21 of these councils received €628 million from the equalisation fund. The narrative is that the rich councils are transferring funding to the poorer councils but the great irony is that many of the so-called poorer councils have greater staff numbers, more funding and better services. For example, Wicklow County Council has a baseline of €8.5 million, a point below which it would not be permitted to fall, whereas Mayo, with 12,000 fewer people and a greater income from other sources, has a baseline of over €17 million. These are artificial baselines based on data from the late 1990s. Population changes have no bearing in this area. For example, Fingal County Council must provide for 100,000 additional people, with no recognition that they exist or provision for their needs. To add to the problem, most of the so-called rich councils must use part of their so-called surplus to self-fund roads and housing from their local property tax. This replaces Government grants to these councils.

Of the €108 million spent in this way, €86 million came from the four Dublin local authorities. Counties such as Cork, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow are growing areas and they are at the heart of this problem. The entire system is unfair and the Government knows it. When will it publish the report on the review of the baseline system, which it received in March last, and does it accept the recommendation of the 2015 Thornhill report that 100% of what is collected locally should be retained locally, if it is to be a local tax?

I recognise the considered views offered by the Deputy in regard to the local property tax, on which she and her office have been corresponding with me for some time. What the Deputy has identified is the issue we have in regard to the local equalisation fund, into which receipts from local property tax flow and are then distributed to local authorities, which without those funds, would have a significant deficit in the funding for their local services. I am aware of the issue raised by the Deputy. It is not a case of any work sitting on a shelf. As I understand it, the Committee on Budgetary Oversight is currently working on a response to the paper I issued in regard to local property tax reform.

This issue can only be considered in light of future changes we make relating to the structure and breadth of local property tax. If we are looking to make progress on the operation of the equalisation fund, it needs to happen when change is being made with regard to the local property tax and at a point at which we look again at the valuation dates for that tax. However, I do not underestimate the complexity and difficulty associated with that change. This is why the Committee on Budget Oversight has been considering my report on this issue for the past number of months and is due to report back on it very soon and to give me its views on how this issue can be progressed.

I have raised this issue in the Committee of Public Accounts and other forums. I understand it is complex and have been told there will be winners and losers. There is a view that we will know who the winners and losers are after the general election. The decisions being made by local authorities must be made in the context of next year's budget. Delays in this regard mean that local authorities with rapidly growing populations are stretching limited resources even further. For example, Meath has half the staff of Kerry. I am not saying that we can change that overnight but the baseline means that this is counted as a need and resourced so there is no way of catching up in the case of a growing area. Deferring this until after the general election, which is what is happening, will make people feel very cynical about this. It undermines the tax.

I agree that we need to look at how we can reform the operation of the equalisation fund. I also believe that over time, we should look to increase the amount of revenue raised in a particular area and local authority that is spent in the area in which it is raised. On the cost of doing that, based the work I did on the local property tax report a number of months ago, I can say that the additional cost to the Exchequer would be anywhere between €80 million and €110 million so there is a significant cost involved. It is not the case that any knowledge regarding winners or losers is being deferred to any point in the future. I have published all of the potential beneficiaries and those who will lose out from any of the different changes that could be considered by the Dáil. All that information is in the public domain. I have provided clarity not only to local authorities but to local property tax bill payers regarding what their liabilities will be for the next year. We have also provided all the information the local authorities need to be able to conclude their work regarding their budgets. However, I take the Deputy's point that reform and change in the equalisation fund in the future will be a very important part of ensuring that the local property tax continues to be legitimate and that it can play a more significant role in the future in meeting local needs.